{Mod Note, this discussion has been split off from the Mexican format thread.} One plausible reason is that it doesn't seem to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Apertura_2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Clausura_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Apertura_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Clausura_2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Apertura_2009#Torneo_Apertura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–10_Primera_División_de_México_season http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Primera_División_de_México_season#Torneo_Clausura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010-11_Primera_División_de_México_season#Torneo_Apertura In the last 8 seasons, the top seed has 0 championships, 1 final appearance, and has gone out in the first round against the lowest seed 4 times. It appears to me OT is no worse, maybe even a little better, than this. If I were reforming the system and wanted to do a better job, I might suggest: * Make it a "3 game series", played on two match dates as today, with the current series OT counting as the third game, * first team to four points the winner, * total goals as tiebreaker, and home goals as next tiebreaker. Now you've rewarded the higher seed (that OT is going to get played more than today, which will favor the high seed, and then you've got home goals, after the higher seed has played more time at home), you'll relatively seldom go to penalties, and you'll have decided the playoffs during the actual playoff games the customers had paid to see. Re-run the only major upset from last year, RSL vs Sounders. In that one, lower-seeded RSL won the first leg, at home, by 3-0, enough to know the odds were long against the Sounders to come back. This was the part that seemed to give seeding the short shrift. In the MLS system, or for that matter the Mexican system, the Sounders have to match the 3-0 scoreline, which is a pretty rare result in soccer. But with this change, they don't have to; if they won Game 2 by any score, then we go to game 3, the 30 minute OT. If they win that too, they move on, 6 points to 3. If they tie the OT, only then do tiebreakers come into play because both teams would be on 4 points.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points But playoffs do not exist as an extended coronation of the top seed.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points Why do you like the Mexican system, then? Most of its appeal is based on the apparently misplaced notion that it's a better reward for higher seeds. Most of the people who advocate it are those who pay attention to MLS's flaws in excruciating detail while giving a comparatively cursory inspection to Mexico's.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points It eliminates penalty kicks. I'm well aware of the "superlíder curse" (which is likely due to the small sample size of only 17 games before playoffs). But there is at least some known and real advantage given to higher seeds in the first 2 rounds. They just have to take it. And going back to '04, when I first started paying attention to what they do down there, I just noticed that every champion finished in the overall top 3, with the exception of 3 of them (seeded 5, 8, and 9). 14 champions crowned, 11 finishing in the top 3.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points That would never be enough. If you were willing to stipulate that it doesn't really reward high seeds, and argued the merit of the system solely on the basis that it eliminates penalty kicks, your side would be convincingly losing this vote, because rewarding higher seeds is what more people want. Last time I saw a rundown of % of playoff round upsets, there wasn't enough difference between the Mexican system and the US system to get worked up about. My proposed system would likely work better than either of them, and with the use of two tiebreakers it would also make penalties quite rare. If you want to take it one more step, penalties have been proven in studies not to be completely random; the team that shoots first wins 60% of the time. So instead of a coin flip, you let the higher seed take first, and it's another reward for higher seeds.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points If you don't mind me saying... this sounds pretty f***in' ingenious to me. It doesn't jack up the schedule with extra match dates, it still puts a priority on getting individual match results (which I love), it values home goals over away goals (a change I've advocated for for a long time) and it forces someone to win it, one way or another ON THE FIELD. I love it. Rep coming. (Although not from me. Apparently I have to whore myself out some more before repping you again.)
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points Hypothetical scenario: RSL wins the first game at home, 2-0. Seattle wins the 2nd game at home, 3-0. Both teams are tied with 3 points, so it goes to OT, which basically is a new game, correct? Let's say RSL wins that OT 1-0. Now it's 3-3 on aggregate, 3-2 to Seattle on home goals, but RSL wins the series because they won that extra 30 minute session. Is that how it would play out? Or am I misunderstanding your proposal?
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points I would say yes. The 30-minute OT is a game 3 -- a mini-game -- worth three points.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points Continuing with my hypothetical scenario... In the original tiebreaker discussed on this thread, Seattle would win the series 3-2 on aggregate. If the series were tied 3-3, Seattle would still win due to having a better regular season record. No OT necessary. In Stan Collins' proposal, RSL wins the series, tied 3-3 after OT, with RSL winning 6-3 on points. Under the current format that I believe we should stick with, Seattle wins the series 3-2. If the series were 3-3, it would go to OT, and if no one wins it there, a penalty shootout. I still contend the third option is the best and fairest way to resolve a two-game series. Stan Collins' proposal would be my 2nd choice, but I don't like how my hypothetical scenario plays out under his format. I do like the idea of treating each game as its own, rather than as one half of a 180 minute match. But the role of the OT period might create more controversy. Actually, this OT format goes against the idea of making each game its own seperate affair. Consider this: Dallas wins the first game at home 1-0. LA wins the second game at home 4-0. Now they're tied on points, 3-3. It goes to OT, and Dallas wins the OT period 1-0. Dallas wins the series, 6-3 on points. But, is it fair for that OT period to be considered a "Game 3?" It wouldn't feel like one. It would feel more like a continuation of Game 2, which LA has dominated, judging by the score. Dallas getting one goal back in extra time in a match they've been beaten in, and an aggregate score they've been beaten in, yet win the series because of that one goal, seems unfair to LA. If the aggregate score was 4-4 after 180 minutes, then OT after the 2nd game seems a lot more justified, and if Dallas wins it, I don't think there's anything controversial about it. But in the above scenario, it doesn't seem right. If you're gonna treat each game as a seperate affair, then the Game 3 tiebreaker needs to be a seperate affair as well.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points It's completely fair. If the agreed-upon format is that each segment gets it's own result, then that's that. Another tweak... I would vote in Stan's system that the coach can put any eleven of his 18 out there. Since the OT is treated as it's own match, it should be a fresh lineup. That would also add a depth element to the series.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points If MLS switch to this format, there will be A LOT of controversy because MLS fans are so used to aggregate goals now. In the above scenario, LA win 4-1 on aggregate. But now they have to play a 30 minutes OT that is considered as the "third" game. How likely is it that MLS to switch to this format? I give it 0.01%. My reasoning: 1) MLS has aggregate goal series since 2003. That's 9 years of history right there. Soon, it will be 10 years under this format. 2) MLS just expanded this aggregate goal series from the conference semis to the conference finals. (and in my opinion, MLS will keep this format for a long time to come).
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points But I don't think most people would accept it as a new match starting from 0-0. Because it is basically an extension of the 2nd match. It's 120 minutes of continuous play. So to seperate the final 30 minutes from the first 90 doesn't seem reasonable. If LA is killing Dallas on that night, it's not fair to say the additional 30 minutes is a whole new match where Dallas, though getting their ass kicked, manages to score once to win the series. If it's an aggregate goals situation and the two teams are tied after 2 games, then the OT makes sense, because you're looking at the series as one long match, basically. But if you're gonna make each match a seperate affair with no carryover, then making OT in the 2nd match a brand new game goes against that philosophy. There has to be a true Game 3 to settle it. I think the reason they went with two-legged series is so that more teams get a home game. If that wasn't an issue though, then I'd revise your proposal and make it a single match at the higher seed, and if they win, they advance. If the lower seed wins, then they play a 2nd match at the home of the lower seed. Winner of that match advances. No draws allowed. The only issue with that is scheduling those potential 2nd matches on short notice.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points It would be something to get used to. Understand, though, that your hypothetical from (what is now) post #7 is a pretty 'wacky' outcome, winning a game 3-0 and then turning around and losing the mini-game 1-0, knowing that all along that all you had to do was tie the game to advance. That's a 1 in 100+ turn of events. 90+ percent of the outcome would be to give higher seeds a 'second chance' if they happen to drop a game. Once in a great while it might also be their undoing, but if that happens, what you're probably going to remember is the incredible sequence of events that made that happen.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points But it's not uncommon to see a team dominate a game yet see the losing team sneak one in late in the game, a "consolation" goal. What you're calling a mini-game is essentially a continuation of the 2nd game, so the flow of the game carries over to that OT period. I know that's kind of an amorphous thing to measure, but I don't think you can seperate this mini-game from the previous 90 minute match that just ended. You need to start over fresh on another night.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points I couldn't disagree more. It's NOT a continuation of game 2 -- it's game 3. As soon as the whistle blows at 90:00, game 2 is over, and points are awarded. If the series has a winner, that's it. If not, game 3 now begins. Any loss of players due to red cards is restored and both teams start with 11. (Although anyone sent off from game 2 is not eligible to play.) And game 3 is a separate entity that is worth its own points. By having a wall between game 2 and the OT/game 3, it allows coaches to make more tactical adjustments with the game 2 result in mind, just like in a normal match. It also means we'll see fresher players/better play in the closing minutes of that game because coaches will use their subs instead of hanging onto them for a potential extra time period. It also means, likewise, that there will be fresher players with more energy in the decisive mini-game. Overall, it wouldn't even have that big of an effect. There would still be a significant number of players that would play 90 and then have to play 30. At the end of the day, I'm talking about a hypothetical stipulation on top of a hypothetical format that's never going to happen anyway. It's like an x-ray of a photo of a drawing of a hologram.
Re: Two-game, aggregate goal playoff: tiebreaker to the team with more points MLS is not enamoured of aggregate goals, I will wager. They used to have a Best of 3, and the reason they dropped it was not thinking that aggregate was 'better' in any particular way, but because that 'if necessary' game was a hard sell (well, also because they did it as a first-to-five points rather than first-to-four, meaning game 2 was seldom ever decisive). This option would get around that problem. I doubt MLS has ever given much consideration to this option. BigSoccer thinks of practically everything, when it comes to tinkering with the league, but 99.9% of the playoff format discussion hasn't gotten past the same few ideas: 1) Single elimination 2) "CL-style" (aggregate with away goals) 3) "Mexican-style" (aggregate with high seed tiebreaker) 4) Group stage 5) Australian-style In other words, just comparing stuff somebody somewhere else is doing right now. I think the NASL had something similar back in the day, but that's been a long time. (The best NASL archive, at http://homepages.sover.net/~spectrum/nasl/nasl-standings.html, contains the following playoff result in the '78 conference semis: "Cosmos defeated Minnesota 2-9, 4-0 (1-0 MG)", which appears to describe the same thing, the higher seeded Cosmos getting blown out in game one on the road, but winning both game 2 and the mini-game at home. What I don't know is if that mini-game was a true mini game, or whether it was sudden death.) NASL also had shootouts in each game, counting like a 'real' win, so the baby might have gotten thrown out with the bathwater. I'm missing your connection there. In this system, consolation goals will usually be something close to irrelevant, but that isn't necessarily either very bad or very strange; after all, consolation goals are also close to irrelevant in the regular season. It's up to fans how they want to perceive it, so I can't offer a sure thing there, but the tendency is to perceive it the way the rules say it is, at least once you've had a year or two to get used to that. MLS won't likely to be going back to the best-of-3 for the reasons I stated above. In general, every possible playoff system has a shortcoming. To me, this one seems smaller than the others. (Well, actually I personally think single elimination is the smallest, but MLS regards a lot of teams not getting to host a game as a major downside, so I'm rolling with that in the design.)
Was just reminded of this thread. Sad to say, I appear to be wrong with the above point. It appears that the league is actually 'enamoured' of goal aggregate, at least in the sense that they appear to be perfectly willing to switch to away goals, a system that has nothing going for it other than that it is done in Europe. Apparently that's enough.
It's still a bitter pill after all these years. The mini-game was a 15 minute extra time period (which was sudden death IIRC). There was no score at the end of 15 minutes, at which time it went to a NASL style shoot out. It looked like the Kicks had it won . . . until Carlos Alberto ripped our hearts out. Here are the highlights of the game, the mini-game and the shoot out: